ColecoVision is third gen, why don't you guys have it changed on Wiki

[high voltage]

I mean we've got written proof from gaming magazines from way back, and even newer ones written from people who are in the know.

Why don't you Coleco guys go to Wikipedia and insist to have it changed?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, it was known world wide that Coleco is third gen, guys, convince Wikipedia and make them have it changed.

Edited September 6, 2014 by high voltage

[Pixelboy]

There have been numerous threads on this subject and the debate that ensued every time only served to demonstrate that there can be no consensus on the issue, because there is no consensus on what the term "generation" actually means.

[bennybingo]

There have been numerous threads on this subject and the debate that ensued every time only served to demonstrate that there can be no consensus on the issue, because there is no consensus on what the term "generation" actually means.

 

[+5-11under]

50 years from now everything from 8 bit (and less) to 16 bit will be 1st generation.

 

benny... interesting version of Lady Bug.

[high voltage]

There have been numerous threads on this subject and the debate that ensued every time only served to demonstrate that there can be no consensus on the issue, because there is no consensus on what the term "generation" actually means.

 

Right you go and tell Wikipedia.

[NIAD]

I love this debate especially since there is all kinds of evidence/proof that the ColecoVision (the Atari 5200 and Vectrex as well) belong in the category of Third Generation... which was sometimes referred BITD as Third Wave. I applaud your consistency and dedication to the matter High Voltage!

 

Just some people have had to rewrite history for their own purposes/reasons/etc../etc.

 

I just put a bag of popcorn in the microwave and have a cold one ready.....

[Rhomaios]

There is no real debate. It's just high voltage who posts the same thing over and over again. Broken records belong in a garbage dump. That's why a number of those magazines talked about it being "billed as" or "publicized as" a third-generation, because it's a meaningless term.

 

Does high voltage ever interact with any of the debate points against him? No, never. Next thing you know it'll be "Japanese controls shoved down our throat" again.

[Keatah]

50 years from now everything from 8 bit (and less) to 16 bit will be 1st generation.

 

The terms 1st, 2nd, 3rd when applied to "generation" are all relative to the time span against which they are compared.

 

As more and more sophisticated consoles and games become available there will be more classes and levels of tech to be compared. Comparisons using the term "generation" typically don't go above 5 - because then it becomes too much.

 

[NIAD]

There is no real debate. It's just high voltage who posts the same thing over and over again. Broken records belong in a garbage dump. That's why a number of those magazines talked about it being "billed as" or "publicized as" a third-generation, because it's a meaningless term.

 

Does high voltage ever interact with any of the debate points against him? No, never. Next thing you know it'll be "Japanese controls shoved down our throat" again.

Yeah, but he did do the research to back up his request that someone convince Wikipedia to correct the info. He even went so far as to translate German in the one article if he doesn't already know the language and spent the time to circle in red the appropriate sentences to make it easier for us to find instead of having to read thru everything.

 

ED: BRB... going to the store to buy a case or two of beer!

Edited September 6, 2014 by NIAD

[Murph74]

High Voltage: Why not just log into Wikipedia and change it yourself?

[Emehr]

It's first generation.

 

First Generation: dominated by arcade ports and arcade-style game mechanics

Second Generation: dominated by 2D platformers

Third Generation: dominated by 3D environments

 

Generations should be defined by gameplay, not when hardware comes out, IMO. Especially when consoles come out at different times in different regions. Otherwise we might as well lump the NES with the Atari 5200 "generation" since it came out in 1983 in Japan. It's just silly and pointless nitpicking.

[+save2600]

Didn't we vote on this a while ago? lol

 

I disagree with the sentiment that gameplay or software would, could or should define generations. Seems only natural that the capabilities of the hardware would have more to do with it. Way I've always looked at it goes a little like this:

 

Pong and compatibles = 1st Generation

 

Atari 2600 and Intellivision = 2nd Generation

 

Colecovision / Atari 5200 = 3rd Generation

[+pboland]

Didn't we vote on this a while ago? lol

 

I disagree with the sentiment that gameplay or software would, could or should define generations. Seems only natural that the capabilities of the hardware would have more to do with it. Way I've always looked at it goes a little like this:

 

Pong and compatibles = 1st Generation

 

Atari 2600 and Intellivision = 2nd Generation

 

Colecovision / Atari 5200 = 3rd Generation

 

Yes, this will be an interesting topic.

 

And just for the heck of it, where does the Coleco Telstar Arcade fall? Or what about the Fairchild Channel F?

 

Just curious.

[high voltage]

Yeah, but he did do the research to back up his request that someone convince Wikipedia to correct the info. He even went so far as to translate German in the one article if he doesn't already know the language and spent the time to circle in red the appropriate sentences to make it easier for us to find instead of having to read thru everything.

 

ED: BRB... going to the store to buy a case or two of beer!

 

Well, I just thought you guys cared about this issue, obviously not. OK your loss.

[Pixelboy]

Yes, this will be an interesting topic.

 

And just for the heck of it, where does the Coleco Telstar Arcade fall? Or what about the Fairchild Channel F?

 

Just curious.

Perhaps we should define generations 0, 0.5, 1.5 and 2.5, just to keep our options open...

[+save2600]

 

And just for the heck of it, where does the Coleco Telstar Arcade fall? Or what about the Fairchild Channel F?

 

 

Coleco Telstar = 1st Gen

 

Fairchild F = 2nd Gen or 1.5 Gen.

[+pboland]

Perhaps we should define generations 0, 0.5, 1.5 and 2.5, just to keep our options open...

That's good.

 

Admittedly I do tend to define consoles in particular generations from time to time, but there are some consoles that blur the lines. I already mentioned the Telstar Arcade and the FairChild Channel F, but there is also the Emerson Arcadia 2001, 3DO, Cdi, Atari Jaguar, and Atari XEGS. I tend to look at consoles this way:

 

Pre Crash- stand alone & cart based

Post Crash- 8-bit, 16-bit, first true disk based (add-on don't count), and then Modern.

 

And yes I do see the holes in my system, but sometimes I just want to simplify it a little. Something tells me that we all have a slightly different way of cataloging these consoles.

[Rhomaios]

It's all a marketing ploy anyway. But yeah, that high voltage wants the Colecovision and 5200 to be part of the third generation and not the Famicom (released a year after the CV & 5200) shows the agenda he's pushing and has nothing to do with "accuracy".

[bennybingo]

All that matters is that I consider all of these retro-systems to be part of MY GENERATION. I grew up on these systems, and at the time I couldn't have really cared less which one was generation 1, 2, 3, etc...

 

Nowadays, if I were to try and figure out which one is from which actual generation, I would go nuts and develop a stutter….maybe that explains what happened to Roger Daltrey...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uswXI4fDYrM

 

[yell0w_lantern]

Perhaps we should define generations 0, 0.5, 1.5 and 2.5, just to keep our options open...

I think we should just go the whole way and use as many Real Numbers as possible.

Now since this is the first time we know of that video game consoles were ever invented, they should all start with a "1" before the decimal place. Then in order of release, each console can have another "1" appended one column to the right of the previous console's number. So take your very first console and that will be Generation 1.1 and then the second console would be Generation 1.11 then the 3rd console would be Generation 1.111 and so on. After all, each new console is just further refinement.

[+5-11under]

Let's all just post here what we posted in the other thread. For example:

 

There's only 4 generations:
1: Pong, Odyssey, etc.
2: Atari 2600, etc.
3: Atari 5200, ColecoVision, etc.
4: All the stuff that came after that.

 

Edit: Link: http://atariage.com/forums/topic/196180-colecovision-is-third-wave-meaning-third-generation/

Edited September 7, 2014 by 5-11under

[NIAD]

As far as all this categorization of system into generations and/or waves, I prefer to stick with they way things were written by people in the Industry while history was being made, not by people who came later and blurred the lines that had already been drawn. Aside from that, I'm teetering on entering the current generation with an Xbox 1 or PS4 for my son and am wondering what everyone thinks is the best system... he has a PSP Vita so that could be a plus for the PS4. Actually, I'm thinking a tricked out gaming laptop (ie: Alienware) might be a better choice as I would like to remove myself completely from all generational discussions that don't pertain to the ColecoVision.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bS3O5zg290k

[youki]

 

 

[+Gemintronic]

I've got the generations down pat:

 

1. Atari Pong

2. VCS

3. 7800

4. Jaguar

5. Gaudy PC Remakes

6. End of the world (there be dragons!)

[Bill Loguidice]

I agree with the idea that there is no agreed to standard about what qualifies as a generation. In fact, for one of my recent books, Vintage Game Consoles, we used our own generational structure. That was more for organizational purposes, but the fact remains, there really is no standard. To my mind, as long as there is a good methodology behind the way the systems are organized, it's not important to strictly classify something as gen 1, gen 2, etc. It also depends upon what your starting point is (is it the Magnavox Odyssey or Fairchild VES, do you include arcade games, do you include personal computers, etc.) and other factors.

 

To my mind, if there aren't other organizational considerations that take precedent (like with Vintage Game Consoles), I'd much rather organize generations by first major releases of significant next steps in hardware, features, or events. There have also been instances in recent years where we don't necessarily have such a dividing line, but since there are essentially three major console manufacturers at this point, we can then go by their release schedules, for instance, the Xbox 360 kicking off the previous generation and the Wii U kicking off the current generation. In short, as far as I'm concerned, there's no ideal way to do this, so as long as the methodology is explainable and backed by reasonable thinking, just about anything goes. It's not particularly important that we have a definitive definition of generations at this point, anyway. Future scholars/historians may be able to come to a consensus, particularly if the concept of the videogame console as we've known it since the 1970s eventually goes away. Then we'd be able to have a genuine discussion of how to structure it all.